Major shared infrastructure projects is where the government belongs. Those are the “common good”.
As far as my case. There is a fiber line within 15,000 feet of me. All the phone company has to do is drop in a DSLAM (not very expensive) and my whole village has DSL. Technically and expense wise not very undoable. Just no interest.
OK, they’re acting like jerks. Do you think government bureaucrats are much better?
The last major infrastructure project was Eisenhower’s freeway system. Seems the “government bureaucrats” did OK with that. Maybe they can repeat today.
Generally, “government bureaucrats” are just like employees at any large business, at least that’s what smart people who study these things say.
I don’t share the disdain many right wingers have of infrastructure projects. However, as they are longer term projects, they are unlikely to stimulate much immediate economic growth.
Here’s a piece where the guy (me) says we can start construction of a dozen nuclear reactors within a couple of months:
American Thinker: Productive stimulus: Fast-track nuclear power
Figure 2,000 people per reactor that’s 24,000 direct jobs. Add the bulldozers, backhoes, concrete, steel, pipes, pumps, computers, fans, etc, etc needed, and that would be a quick start.
I’ll be on Fox Business tomorrow to talk about it. (1 pm EST/10 am PST)
Bustin’ atoms. THAT’S where the future is.
You are a nuclear engineer? A long time ago I read about a nuclear leak at California campus. They were using I think salt instead of graphite or heavy water as a moderator. This allowed the fuel to never be exhausted (leaving no waste). The salt corroded the seals and caused a leak so it was abandoned. Has any prgress been made on this? Surely new advances could make this workable.
Chads,
That was probably a liquid sodium fast breeder reactor. The US has built a few of them, in fact the first ever electricity was generated by one in Idaho back in 1951. We nuclear engineers love 'em but we haven’t done enough work to work out all the little bugs (like pump seals). Don’t think we built any on a college campus though.
Today we pretty much stick with water cooling for commercial generating plants. We’ve got those down pat.
The next big design advance will be the pebble bed reactor. South Africa has had the lead on that. I’m rooting for it.
Sorry, I kind of hijacked this thread too.
I really haven’t read much about the 30s so I really can’t say much about it. However the agriculture sector was much bigger then and was hit very hard by the dust bowl. The agriculture sector hit had more to do with weather than economics and when a large sector of your economy takes a hit like that it only exacerbates problems.
I was talking to a nuclear engineer about pebble bed reactors. He said that graphite catches on fire and they are not safe. I had read just the opposite – that they are very safe. I was disappointed.
Bah Heavy water reactors are where it’s at… although I could be biased being Canadian and all
Heavy water reactors are best for making plutonium out of natural, unenriched uranium. Look at the countries that have bought them - they all had reasons for keeping that option in their back pocket (except Canada.) I’ve worked on them (Pickering, outside Toronto) and they are very complicated for the power they deliver.
Still, they’re not bad at all and great if you don’t want to depend on a uranium enrichment plant.
As to pebble bed reactors burning, that requires air ingress to displace the helium. Plus, the graphite is hard, machined, and very difficult to start. I don’t see that as much of a hazard.
Asking if something is “safe” is like asking if you know the value for “pi” (pie). You have to ask, “to how many digits?”
A friend of mine works at the Pickering reactor.
They are complicated, which is part of why they haven’t been as successful as LWR - they are also MUCH safer in general.
LOL, all we need to do is go to LS and add it to our cart and it tells us the value. Sheesh you nuclear scientists make things seem complicated
I think the forum changed the name of the math value of 3.1416, not that he was talking about mones.
The software automatically changes it to primal instinct. Mtn Jim had it right - I meant the area of a circle divided by the radius squared.
Guess you don’t need math to pick up girls! (Drat!)
Also, I don’t think that one can say that CANDUs are safer than LWRs although I think they are comparable. They are more capital intensive in terms of $/kW but the fuel costs are even lower than LWRs.
AECL tried to get design certification from the NRC for the US for an advanced CANDU but gave up. Of course, the NRC is very conservative and, well, a big bureaucracy. Seems like the “General Design Criteria” (“The 64 Commandments of Nuclear Reactor Safety” aka 10CFR50 Appendix A) weren’t conceived with CANDUs in mind.
See making things complicated again. Of course I knew that, it was a joke. Scientists and crazy recluse types from San Diego. LOL 
For some reason I thought Heavy water reactors fundamentals meant that they were safer… something like if it gets too hot the heavy water evaporates and because the fuel NEEDS heavy water to continue reacting as the heavy water evaporates away from the fuel it slows down the nuclear reaction. Maybe I’m thinking of 3rd/4th generation reactors (the ones that are still in the design stage).
I think that the coolant is light water while the moderator in the candela is heavy water. I’d wonder if that means it has a positive coolant void coefficient. That means that, like Chernobyl, the coolant is a relative poison compared to the moderator. Lose the light water coolant or have it flash to steam and the power goes up - the exact opposite of what one wants to happen. LWRs have a negative coolant temperature coefficent - lose cooling and the power goes down - the safe direction.
Of course, I haven’t delved that deeply in CANDU reactor physics so maybe they’ve balanced it somehow or maybe they use heavy water as the coolant too.